This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my par t , I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

Even Scalia argues that you do not have a right to anonymous political speech. Moreover, allowing such speech is hazardous to our democracy. Since you do not have a right to donate anonymously, and by current statute, donations to organizations allowed to make political speech must disclose their donors, you do not have a right to donate to political campaigns anonymously. Ergo, the public has a right to know who contributes to whom.

I absolutely have a right to know which elected officials you are donating to.

Because they're the ones who make the rules, there's a huge conflict of interest that exists whenever you donate money to a campaign or engage in any electioneering. Disclosure is necessary to prevent corruption. If a random individual spends a few million dollars getting Joe Schmo elected, and then Joe Schmo earmarks a billiion dollar development; is it payback or good policy?

I shouldn't know if you donate money to the NRA. But the public has a right to know when you donate money to electioneering.

You don't have a right to know who donate money to for the same reason you don't have a right to know who I vote for; it would make me subject to intimidation.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

Oh, I know she won't go to prison! That's what makes this so outrageous.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

You don't have a right to know who donate money to for the same reason you don't have a right to know who I vote for; it would make me subject to intimidation.

While I appreciate the sentiment, this has been argued in front of the Supreme Court and has lost, repeatedly. The courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to force disclosure because the absence of disclosure promotes corruption.

You can go here and look up contributions by anyone to anyone. Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets If you or I wish to make an impact politically, we give to a campaign and our donations are public. But if you have a few million dollars to give, you can anonymously fund an 501c4 to skirt the law and avoid disclosure. One rule for normal people, a different rule for the super wealthy.... M'erica.

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my par t , I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

Even Scalia argues that you do not have a right to anonymous political speech. Moreover, allowing such speech is hazardous to our democracy. Since you do not have a right to donate anonymously, and by current statute, donations to organizations allowed to make political speech must disclose their donors, you do not have a right to donate to political campaigns anonymously. Ergo, the public has a right to know who contributes to whom.

Except you didnt answer the question. If you think you have some legal right to publicize my private speech without my consent, just show me where that right is in the constitution.

While I appreciate the sentiment, this has been argued in front of the Supreme Court and has lost, repeatedly. The courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to force disclosure because the absence of disclosure promotes corruption.

You can go here and look up contributions by anyone to anyone. Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets If you or I wish to make an impact politically, we give to a campaign and our donations are public. But if you have a few million dollars to give, you can anonymously fund an 501c4 to skirt the law and avoid disclosure. One rule for normal people, a different rule for the super wealthy.... M'erica.

The constitution is supreme to federal laws, and it says you dont. You have yet to show me any language in the constitution that give you this right to know who I support.

So the laws that mandate it are unconstitutional?

I'm not saying that disclosure is a constitutional mandate. I'm saying that disclosure is the law and the constitution provides the power to mandate disclosure of donors to funds used for electioneering.